You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: the reporters don't fully understand financial crime [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
amazona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-06-03 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. the reporters don't fully understand financial crime
I'm confident that Jack Blum explained to them that structuring to avoid the CTR reporting requirement is itself a federal (not state) offense. You do not have to prove what the money was used for. The feds already have all of the information they need to prosecute Limbaugh under the Money Laundering Act of 1986.

If the state is still investigating because the feds are letting Rush skate, which appears to be the case, we should be howling for blood because the federal gov't would have arrested and prosecuted an unknown non-celebrity for these violations to the full extent of the law -- we're talking a slamdunk case. There is no doubt about the evidence; the bank has already paid a $10 million dollar fine for its part in the crime and turned over the records. Each $9,900 or 9,500 cash withdrawal is a separate count of structuring. So you've got all the paperwork there, and the perp is caught red-handed. So why aren't the feds prosecuting Rush instead of terrorizing casino cashiers? When I was working with large sums of cash, I spent a great deal of time and effort to remain in compliance with the money laundering act. The best way to prove you aren't trying to evade the law is to take out or deposit the money in the amount you actually need. So I had CTRs for $23,000, say, or for $17,000. I could prove I didn't have a consistent pattern of cashing out for $8,000 or 9,000 dollars.

Rush is guilty, guilty, guilty, and the federal gov't already has the proof. It is a disgrace that they are not doing their job.

Apparently, the states of New York and Florida have more restrictive money laundering laws that require proof of involvement in the drug trade. The federal requirement requires no such proof. Structuring itself is an offense, and a serious one.

In addition, the bank officials who advised Rush to "structure" are equally guilty of structuring. Properly trained bank and casino officials know they must never, never give advice on the Money Laundering Act. There really isn't any way to discuss this with your client without violating the law. If you are dealing with cash, discuss it with a lawyer who has knowledge of these matters -- not with a banker. You are putting her at risk of serious penalties, not just yourself. The banker who advised Rush to withdraw in $9,900 increments is guilty of the same crime that Rush is guilty of if he advised his drug dealers how to spend or deposit their cash to avoid attention.

Rush is indeed a true scumbag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC